36 (131).
14 XII 02 [London].

Dear G[eorgy] V[alentinovich]!

It's been quite some time since we've heard from you, and meanwhile a good deal of business and questions have accumulated.

First of all, regarding articles for *Iskra*.

For no. 30 (no. 29 comes out tomorrow or the day after) we have an article by Julius [Martov] entitled "Autumn Results." Another article would be n e c e s s a r y. How do you stand on this? Please write and let me know whether you are writing something and when you think of sending it—the same goes for the feuilleton: it would be very good to have in no. 30 the feuilleton against the Tarasov "page" that you proposed. I shall await your reply.

Next, regarding the pamphlet against the s[ocialist]-r[evolutionaries]. L. Gr. [Deich] told me and wrote to you that it would be better if you undertook it, since you could provide, besides "dogmatic" criticism, also a h i s t o r i c a l p a r a l l e l with the 1870s. I completely agree with L. Gr. [Deich] that such a parallel is very, very important; I myself, of course, cannot even think about it. And besides, I would be very pleased if you undertook this pamphlet. I myself don't feel very inclined toward it, and moreover, now, apart from current business, I have work ahead preparing for lectures in Paris (they want to invite me there, as Julius [Martov] reports, for 3–4 lectures on the agrarian question). So everything and everybody is in favor of your taking on the pamphlet—and it is absolutely necessary against the s[ocialist]-r[evolutionaries]; we must thoroughly and from all sides pick them apart. They are harming us and the cause desperately. Write, then, what you decide.

L. Gr. [Deich]'s reply to "*Revolutionary* Russia" went out in no. 29: you will receive it, that is, at the end of the week—and you've already seen it in the proofs, too.a)

V. I. LENIN — G. V. PLEKHANOV.

10. O. MARTOV — TO THE LONDON SECTION OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In any case, the disputed question can be decided only on the spot, by inspection of "our people" and "not our people" and after a count of our forces. Vasily [E. M. Aleksandrova] does not stand by his plan quand mêmeat all; if a general congress proves possible, feasible, and not requiring too lengthy preparations, then there will be nothing to discuss.

We don't yet have Matryona [I. G. Smidovich] here. I'm waiting for Chernov the whole time; by rumor, he had quite a fierce battle with G[eorgy] V[alentinovich] Plekhanov] in Geneva.—I've gotten confused in the "terminology." I was identifying the Group *) with the "Heron,"1) and in both I saw the being that was supposed to be settled in K[iev]. Now it turns out that the Heron sits, while Gr[unya] is whole, and even in one place with the Cook [Shchekoldysh], who, it seems, is not with Sem[yon] Semyonovich—the Northern Union]?

How much material is coming in? I'm very distressed by the consciousness that we are now clearly falling behind "R[evolutionary] R[ussia]" and perhaps "L[iberation]" in this regard. We need to begin again distributing addresses in the broadest manner. It would be good if you sent Vasily [E. M. Aleksandrova] all the addresses suitable for correspondence and instructed him directly and through other *Iskra* activists to replace with them all those that anyone in R[ussia] possesses. Then we must more often scold for the absence of correspondence. In particular, I would advise scolding Kolya [the Petersburg Committee], and Kurts [Lengnik], and Sonya [Krzizhanovsky], and the Embryo *), and the Moscow people, and the Nizhny Novgorod people. After all, essentially, none of them manifests any efforts in this direction. Our people simply cannot give equal attention to all aspects of the work. Friendly committees ought to undertake (this should be proposed to them) to send unfailingly once a month a detailed account (for publication) of the progress of the local movement.

Regarding Rostov affairs, the "Union" issued a separate offprint from no. 2 of "*Red* Banner."

I don't know Dubroshinsky *).

We had our evening gathering here on Saturday. The proceeds haven't been counted yet, but, by all accounts, the net profit is no less than 350 francs. Some think it will come to 500. In general, it went well, despite the boycott by s[ocialist]-r[evolutionary]'s, the Bund, and the Union. Rather than send money here for Vasily—E. M. Aleksandrova]—it's simpler to take it from these sums. But that's simple only on paper, because we don't want Krokhmol to know who and how much is being given. Therefore, you or L. Gr. [Deich] should give Krokhmol a "directive" to hand me 400 francs from local funds under some pretext or even without any pretext—supposedly I already know what it's for. If you find this inconvenient, then simply demand all the money here.—Has the "American" thousand arrived?—As for the incident with the "intercepted" money, that is a great shame and scandal. We absolutely must clear this up. In what city did the donor transfer the money? What does he know about the person to whom he transferred it?

[In yesterday's letter it was said that proofs were attached. But there are none.]

P. S. What's the news about the Geneva editions? When will Lalayants's pamphlet finally come out?6) "The Tasks" have been published in an extremely inelegant manner.7) The copies sent here don't even have a cover. Among other things, I propose to publish in Geneva "*The Cunning* Mechanics."8) Lositzky9) presented to me for it a number of new figures and calculations, and I shall soon rework it accordingly.

*) It was not possible to determine who was being discussed.

2) Apparently Mosey Lurye.

3) M. G. Gursky, member of the Kiev Committee of the R.S.-D.R.P., participant in the escape from Kiev prison in August 1902.

4) Alexander Petrovich Dolivo-Dobrovol'sky, party alias "Dno," after participation in student unrest in Petersburg and serving open surveillance in Samara province, was a member of the Yaroslavl group of the Northern Committee (1900–1901). Arrested during the destruction of the group, he was exiled to Orenburg province, whence he fled abroad to London, where he joined *Iskra*. In 1902 he returned to Russia, worked in the Petersburg Committee, and was arrested. He suffered mental illness in prison and after his release shot himself.

5) Quand même—at any cost, by all means.

6) What pamphlet by I. Kh. Lalayants is meant here is unknown; in 1902 *Iskra* did not publish a pamphlet written by Lalayants.

7) 2nd edition of N. Lenin's pamphlet "The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats."

8) "*Cunning* Mechanics"—a well-known popular-agitational Populist pamphlet. *Iskra* did not publish this pamphlet in its editions.

9) A. E. Lositzky, who was then in Paris, an economist-statistician, contributor to Marxist publications, known for his works on peasant economy.

*) By my calculations, this is the minimum of what should now be in the local till.